Surendra Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2184 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2184 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 February, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 325/2022

Surendra Sharma S/o Jagdishchandra Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Behind Sitaram Baby Park Bagar Chowk, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Manjulata W/o Surendra Sharma D/o Harish Chandra Doyal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Suthar R/o B/23, Behind National Handloom, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shokat Ali (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP Mr. Jaswant Suthar for complainant (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

08/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the

criminal proceedings pending against him before the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro

(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case

No.17/2019 (N.C.V. No.1425/2019), whereby the trial court vide

order dated 18.12.2021 has attested the compromise for the

offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, but refused to attest

the same for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as the same is

non-compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the

instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Mahila Thana,

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-325/2022]

Jodhpur West has registered an FIR No.226/2018 against the

petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 498 IPC. After

investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner

for the above-referred offences in the trial court, wherein the trial

is pending against the petitioner.

During pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while

stating therein that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending

against the petitioner may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 18.12.2021 has allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 406 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the same so far as it relates to compounding

the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending

against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., there is

no possibility of his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by

continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence under

Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise

arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-325/2022]

against the petitioner in relation to offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C.

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the

case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT

2012(9) SC - 426 has held as below:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-325/2022]

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-325/2022]

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2

have already entered into compromise and settled their dispute

amicably, there is no possibility of the petitioner being convicted in

the case pending against him. When once the matrimonial

disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no

useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal

proceedings pending.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the

opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings